Influence of Muscle Traction on the Primary Stability of a Reverse Humeral Prosthesis

Overview

Journal J Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2023 Jun 19

PMID 37333764

Authors

Anna Rifer

Dirk Stolz

Carlos A Fonseca Ulloa

Torben Harz

Markus Rickert

Alexander Jahnke

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Currently, the influence of muscle traction on the postoperative stability of humeral prostheses is not adequately researched. This study analyzed the prosthesis' stability during muscle traction considering different bone defect sizes.

Methods: The reverse humeral prosthesis "AEQUALIS™ ADJUSTABLE REVERSED" (Stryker) was implanted using press-fit into ten bones with a length of 200 mm and 160 mm. Subsequently, the models were torqued in 30 cycles using a universal testing machine (2 Nm - 6 Nm) and loaded axially to simulate muscle traction. The axial weight increased from 7.7 kg (pure muscle traction) over 40 kg (45-degree abduction) to 69.3 kg (90-degree abduction). The prosthesis' relative micromotion was simultaneously measured at three different measurement heights using high-sensitivity displacement transducers and compared to the relative micromotion without axial load.

Results: It was found that a larger torsional moment was associated with a larger relative micromotion in both bone defects studied. However, the influence became significant ( < 0.014) in bone models with predominantly larger defect.Furthermore, no significant influence of muscle traction on relative micromotion could be detected for the larger bone models at any of the measurement levels ( = 1.000). In contrast, smaller bones showed no significant differences in muscle traction until a torsional moment of 6 Nm ( < 0.028).

Conclusion: In conclusion, a larger torsional moment is associated with a higher relative micromotion and muscle traction, conclusively, has no effect on the primary stability of the reverse prosthesis for a 200 mm bone .

References

Westerhoff P, Graichen F, Bender A, Halder A, Beier A, Rohlmann A . In vivo measurement of shoulder joint loads during activities of daily living. J Biomech. 2009; 42(12):1840-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.05.035. View

Spross C, Ebneter L, Benninger E, Erschbamer M, Erhardt J, Jost B . Short- or long-stem prosthesis for intramedullary bypass of proximal humeral fractures with severe metaphyseal bone loss: evaluation of primary stability in a biomechanical model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22(12):1682-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.02.012. View

Gohlke F . [Bone defects in endoprosthetic treatment of the shoulder and elbow]. Orthopade. 2017; 46(12):979-980. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-017-3500-9. View

Court-Brown C, Caesar B . Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury. 2006; 37(8):691-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.130. View

Cuff D, Levy J, Gutierrez S, Frankle M . Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 20(4):646-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.026. View

Gohlke F, Werner B . [Humeral and glenoid bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty : Classification and treatment principles]. Orthopade. 2017; 46(12):1008-1014. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-017-3484-5. View

Mai K, Verioti C, Casey K, Slesarenko Y, Romeo L, Colwell Jr C . Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2010; 39(3):126-30. View

Jahnke A, Muller F, Fonseca Ulloa C, Rickert M, Werner B, Gohlke F . Press-fit reverse shoulder arthroplasty in case of advanced humeral bone loss - Is additional distal fixation necessary for primary stability?. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2021; 82:105283. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105283. View

Grant J, Bishop N, Gotzen N, Sprecher C, Honl M, Morlock M . Artificial composite bone as a model of human trabecular bone: the implant-bone interface. J Biomech. 2006; 40(5):1158-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.04.007. View

10.

Pilliar R, Lee J, Maniatopoulos C . Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; (208):108-13. View

11.

Cristofolini L, Viceconti M . Mechanical validation of whole bone composite tibia models. J Biomech. 2000; 33(3):279-88. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(99)00186-4. View

12.

Jakubowitz E, Neubrech C, Raiss P, Nadorf J, Tanner M, Rickert M . Humeral cementless surface replacement arthroplasties of the shoulder: an experimental investigation on their initial fixation. J Orthop Res. 2011; 29(8):1216-21. DOI: 10.1002/jor.21393. View

13.

Bensmann G . [Cementless fixation of endoprostheses]. Biomed Tech (Berl). 1990; 35 Suppl 3:44-7. View

14.

Muller S, Taha M, Muller A . [Update on Shoulder Arthroplasty]. Ther Umsch. 2020; 77(10):505-510. DOI: 10.1024/0040-5930/a001227. View

15.

Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Westerhoff P, Bender A, Gabel U . [Loads acting on orthopaedic implants. Measurements and practical applications]. Orthopade. 2007; 36(3):195-6, 198-200, 202-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-007-1055-x. View

16.

Roche C . Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Biomechanics. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2022; 7(1). PMC: 8883988. DOI: 10.3390/jfmk7010013. View

17.

Best M, Aziz K, Wilckens J, McFarland E, Srikumaran U . Increasing incidence of primary reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020; 30(5):1159-1166. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.010. View

18.

Nourissat G, Corsia S, Srikumaran U, Sonnard A, Bargoin K, Paumier S . Use of a locking stem for reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a rare but reliable option. Int Orthop. 2022; 46(9):2097-2104. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05444-8. View

19.

Praagman M, Stokdijk M, Veeger H, Visser B . Predicting mechanical load of the glenohumeral joint, using net joint moments. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2000; 15(5):315-21. DOI: 10.1016/s0268-0033(99)00087-x. View

20.

Beirer M, Imhoff A, Braun S . [Impingement syndromes of the shoulder]. Orthopade. 2017; 46(4):373-386. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-017-3402-x. View